India on the War path?

[pothead]

Thanks for proving my point!!!

Good for you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ma'am, you were tagged for a purpose; it irritates me when twerps tag me with negative Indian news just to be able to imagine my annoyance and anger, and I would not take such liberties with a hard-boiled egg who has banned me (on another forum). Or who has taken what I consider in my usage a perfectly harmless statement and crucified me with it. You have been tagged deliberately and with an intention in mind.

Thanks for the tag it feels good to see my name in that list.
But i hope i didnt make it to the list by mistake. Lolz

With your permission, I will respond to the points raised by you below, before reverting to the true purpose of the tagging, with which I will bring up the end.

Flummoxed i was, after i saw the tag on a thread titled "India on war path" and i was lead to a post which described India's political history,some of which i could never envisage.

We got there because there is a persistent member who insists on the personal culpability of the previous Prime Minister for a variety of crimes against the nation. It got to the stage where a discussion on the change in tone of the conversation between India and Pakistan was hijacked and converted into an apology for the BJP.

May I sum up the discussion from my point of view?

My view of the current situation is that an improvement in the Pakistani tone of speaking had been met by a sharp deterioration on our side, and the free flow of rhetoric on both sides only encouraged a mindset that would move from irritation to anger to belligerence. For both sides.

To go on, this creation of a tough-talking, side-of-the-mouth attitude was unsafe; it does not mean that war is imminent, it means that both sides are inclined to take offence at trifles, leave alone on substantive matters, and are inclined to go on from there to extremely offensive speech. Further, that this verbal belligerence might accidentally transmute itself to physical action.

We may or may not agree that this is what is happening, but let me get back to this point after addressing your own points.

After reading through 7 pages of this thread here are my views on the topic... and the thread:

1) Did anyone here bother to watch the video where IAF chief Dhanoa made the statement on hitting the Pak's nuke arsenals?
Anyone who is abreast with India's activity in the space, will tell you CARTOSAT-2 series has changed the game for India. Cartosat-2E has resolution of .65m or lesser and its NOT for civilian use so the exact resolution is not disclosed. Next year we will be launching series 3.
So if Mr.Dhanoa said what he did then be assured he wasn't wrong. But then he was merely talking of India's capabilities.
He didn't stop there.
He told the media that IAF has its issues so India is now working on a plan-B, incase (bold and red) India has to face a two-front war. So no our chief would never make juvenile statements like "we are planning to attack Pakistan soon" or that "we are craving for a war".

If anyone plans to watch Air chief's statement then pls watch the one aired on DOORDARSHAN and not the ones where journos are giving their opinion of Chief's statement. I don't want you to be mislead.

I entirely agree with you about the Air Chief's statement and its intent and entirely disagree with you about the effects of better visual viewing of the ground from satellites.

The Air Chief's statement has been taken out of context, and misquoted by a Pakistani reporter who has the impertinence to boost his statements with the bragging phrase that these matters are what he reports for a living. A pity that he finds someone with an equal brain to his, someone who then pays him for distortion and war-mongering.

As regards CARTOSAT, the increase in visual capability will not help us detect Pakistani missiles (as they are mobile, it is not the sites that are important, it is the launchers). Without going into harmful territory, it will be impossible to track every missile or bomb-platform. Twenty years ago, with fairly good monitoring facilities, an effort was made to track every Pakistani aircraft in inventory.

It couldn't be done. Not 100%. There were always a missing plane or three.

2) WAR is not happening any time soon.
I'm sorry to rain on your party guys but this is the fact. No country in the world can afford a war right now, not India,not Pakistan and not even China and America. World economy isnt in its pink anymore.

I wish I could agree.

47-48 happened before I was born (yes, really).

I heard the rhetoric in 65, from both sides. It was ugly but it was more rah-rah football cheering than anything bitter and irretrievable. Flt Lt. Cariappa was offered decent quarters by his father's junior, and refused. It was a funny war, in many ways, nowhere as bitter as subsequently.

71 was awful. We were college kids then, we watched the 10 million flood in, nearly half of them on our side of the border (West Bengal; the other side was Tripura and Cachhar in Assam), crowd into camps all along the eastern boundary and settle down to die. A cousin came across with Mujib's speech; everyone was quiet and deeply emotional long after he left. Our hatred of an inactive Indira Gandhi, an inactive Indian Army grew to an intensity you cannot imagine. On the Pakistani side, after December, there was the shock and pain of a road accident victim.

93, the bombs went off in Bombay. It was bound to happen, but nobody thought it would be so widespread, so brutal.

99 followed; the whole nation arose in outrage and anger.

08 followed; that was the low point for Indian thinking about Pakistan.

What I want to say is that relations have never been as bad as before, and it is due more to the Indian side becoming unwontedly aggressive; what had been routine matters earlier are now fighting matters today. It is this that we wanted to draw people's attention.

3) How dare the OP change the title to suit his narrative? Even the FB post which was posted in the OP had a title, but to catch more eyeballs the word WAR was included when it was posted on PDF. I'm surprised that even the great mod @Oscar missed it. These are stuff for which mortal members like me and others get warnings and bans.

Now you have touched the point I wanted to talk about. This is why you were tagged.

First, I agree that the OP was making mischief; however, I was not very concerned. I had already read the original - elsewhere - and, beyond feeling bored that someone was trying such infantile tricks, I was not bothered.

4) Negative rating?

Joe, you and me both have something in common. Both of us are not very kind to criticism and views which are divergent from our own. Albeit your views and mine are poles apart.

What @pothead said resonates with ppl like me. I can tell you for a fact that its ppl like us who gave Modi a clear majority in the parliament so I'm assuming his opinion will find many takers among the Indian audience. I find it wrong to silence such a sizable majority like ours, when he was merely defending his points despite him getting called names by the badge holders on this thread. Not fair sir! He was not even provocative.

Have you noticed me hand out negatives without a rational basis? In this case, whatever his feelings and his loyalties, and given my equal disposition to dislike intensely all three and a half political factions, I was not negative rating his politics, in case you think that was the case. I was negative rating his false and slanderous assertions towards individuals, and his repetition of RSS slander derived from the lowest variety of web-site. His personal demure manner had nothing to do with it; I was disapproving of the content, not of the mouth-piece.

If you go back and check, it is always the content, rarely the mouthpiece. So his being provocative was not relevant.

Dalit?
Sir our president is a Dalit himself- Ram Nath Kovind.

But then to discuss political issues of India, you and me should be on a more appropriate thread.

Putting up a token Dalit is no cushion against atrocious behaviour towards Dalits in the real world.

Now, to the real purpose.

I wanted to take an internal conversation further, and wanted you to read the posts here. Rest on 'conversation'. I believe that my views in that conversation have been totally vindicated.

 

[Joe Shearer]

yes sir, I heard it just now. After all I am a village idiot. I respect your knowledge but you seriously need to tone down your condescending attitude.

The Greeks said it very well,"Know thyself".

Straw man argument does not refer to JUST what you quoted. You obviously have the intellectual capacity to know in which other scenarios the phrase can be used. Please us it.

Please don't use that chestnut,"I know what it is, but I won't tell you, you have to find out for yourself." It's kind of shop-soiled.

Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.Feb 4, 2016

The Congress party had a discussion through ballot, the democratic means to elect Patel. That should have been the end of it. What you are now 'hiding' is the fact that Nehru sulked and went to Gandhi. Thee rest is history. You can obfuscate the facts but that's what happened.

Which fact was obfuscated? You are doing the straw man again. I never introduced any facts, nor did I hide any. Just using the word 'obfuscate' doesn't get you or your argument anywhere; it was inappropriate.

And how can you possibly say that it was the right of the rest of the Congress party, including its several widely divergent factions, to appoint somebody through secret ballot and overturn the 1941 decision of Gandhi that Nehru was his political successor? Oh, of course, you wouldn't know that. That and nothing else was why Gandhi intervened. If he was nobody, then surely neither Patel nor the rest of the party had any business paying any attention to him. If he was the unquestioned leader, who is the RSS to judge what should be going on within a party and an organisation that they hated?

Sir, that it was an internal decision of the party is a ridiculous position to take. @Oscar Sir, do you support this claim that it was an internal decision and hence rest of the Indians had no stake or position in the decision?
1. Thank you.
2. Ridiculous position. I wish you would reconsider it.
3. Another straw man argument. Sangh or not, it was not just the gentlemen who sat in that room deciding Nehru as PM who fought for independence. Millions of people and that includes my great grand parents, yours and many others who participated in the freedom struggle. regarding Sangh, make another thread and we can exchange views. I think you are bringing in Sangh just to score points which are not relevant in this debate.

If mine is half baked, let people who read decide in your argument that Nehru being made as PM is internal party matter and rest of Indians had no stake in the decision.

Kingdom can be built by ballot. You know this for a fact.
My point was about using Gandhi as a shield when it suits one argument only to pretend the fact that Gandhi asked for Congress dissolution never existed.

Whether one is poorly equipped or not is something YOU participating in the debate should not judge. let others who are reading our exchange chip in.

The sanghi jibes are overused. After all we all know who was sent to kaalapani and who was put in 3 star jail.

Who was sent to Kalapani and who was sent to -what did you call it? a 3 star jail? Are you referring to the head of the Hindu Mahasabha, and do you know the difference between that and the RSS? For that matter, do you know what that head in Kalapani wrote to the British, or is that also irrelevant?

 

[Joe Shearer]

yes sir, I heard it just now. After all I am a village idiot. I respect your knowledge but you seriously need to tone down your condescending attitude.
Straw man argument does not refer to JUST what you quoted. You obviously have the intellectual capacity to know in which other scenarios the phrase can be used. Please us it.

The Congress party had a discussion through ballot, the democratic means to elect Patel. That should have been the end of it. What you are now 'hiding' is the fact that Nehru sulked and went to Gandhi. Thee rest is history. You can obfuscate the facts but that's what happened.



Sir, that it was an internal decision of the party is a ridiculous position to take. @Oscar Sir, do you support this claim that it was an internal decision and hence rest of the Indians had no stake or position in the decision?
1. Thank you.
2. Ridiculous position. I wish you would reconsider it.
3. Another straw man argument. Sangh or not, it was not just the gentlemen who sat in that room deciding Nehru as PM who fought for independence. Millions of people and that includes my great grand parents, yours and many others who participated in the freedom struggle. regarding Sangh, make another thread and we can exchange views. I think you are bringing in Sangh just to score points which are not relevant in this debate.

If mine is half baked, let people who read decide in your argument that Nehru being made as PM is internal party matter and rest of Indians had no stake in the decision.

This is a matter of knowing and not knowing. Let me ask you: what was the election about?

Kingdom can be built by ballot. You know this for a fact.

What does that mean? If a secret ballot offers no protection, then what do you propose? a Loy Jirgah? Or a Panchayat? Do you really have even an elementary grasp over political theory?

My point was about using Gandhi as a shield when it suits one argument only to pretend the fact that Gandhi asked for Congress dissolution never existed.

When did I pretend that? Please point it out. You take too many liberties with the truth.

Whether one is poorly equipped or not is something YOU participating in the debate should not judge. let others who are reading our exchange chip in.

Everyone is welcome to chip in, but I am quite comfortable in assessing your answers and your posts and concluding what level of knowledge and information that represents. It represents the pits. Ask me why and I will point out the specific points.

The sanghi jibes are overused. After all we all know who was sent to kaalapani and who was put in 3 star jail.

This too has been exposed. I really suggest that you do your homework before entering into an open discussion.

 

[pothead]

The Greeks said it very well,"Know thyself".

And the pothead said "Get Over Yourself and have a joint".

Please don't use that chestnut,"I know what it is, but I won't tell you, you have to find out for yourself." It's kind of shop-soiled.

Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn't support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.Feb 4, 2016

There is no chestnut.
You use Straw man as a means to caricaturize my position. yes sir, it can be used that way as well.

Which fact was obfuscated? You are doing the straw man again. I never introduced any facts, nor did I hide any. Just using the word 'obfuscate' doesn't get you or your argument anywhere; it was inappropriate.

And how can you possibly say that it was the right of the rest of the Congress party, including its several widely divergent factions, to appoint somebody through secret ballot and overturn the 1941 decision of Gandhi that Nehru was his political successor? Oh, of course, you wouldn't know that. That and nothing else was why Gandhi intervened. If he was nobody, then surely neither Patel nor the rest of the party had any business paying any attention to him. If he was the unquestioned leader, who is the RSS to judge what should be going on within a party and an organisation that they hated?

ok, let say you were less than wilful with the whole truth.
That Nehru was not happy and approached Gandhi is the truth.

I did not know about the 1941 incident. Thanks for sharing. Still, the pre-independence Congress and the post served completely different objectives. Hence my point about the Patel being usurped by Nehru.
Again, your bringing in RSS has little bearing except to point finger at me and say 'you are a RSS sympathiser and you should not be asking these questions'. Does not work that way. I will ask questions, it can't be a right given to only one set of people professing to a certain ideology.

Who was sent to Kalapani and who was sent to -what did you call it? a 3 star jail? Are you referring to the head of the Hindu Mahasabha, and do you know the difference between that and the RSS? For that matter, do you know what that head in Kalapani wrote to the British, or is that also irrelevant?

What was written to British is relevant but I am not interested in debating this in this thread.
You are too smart for me & I can't handle you with you trying to push me in circles.

My other points I quoted you won't address and they were more important than the Sangh argument which you are forcing me to debate.

What does that mean? If a secret ballot offers no protection, then what do you propose? a Loy Jirgah? Or a Panchayat? Do you really have even an elementary grasp over political theory?

Sir, two words, Political dynasties.
You are talking about the idealistic position of a democracy and I am pointing at the realistic positions on the ground.

Look around India sir, you will find kings and prince's in waiting. Just that they have renamed themselves as leaders and cloaked themselves in the garb of democracy.

When did I pretend that? Please point it out. You take too many liberties with the truth.

May be bad choice of words but you won't mention the most important fact of Congress - that Gandhi wanted it dissolved.
Imagine if that had come to pass and there was a new party fighting the political battle, would Nehru still have become the first PM?

 

[Levina]

I would not take such liberties with a hard-boiled egg who has banned me (on another forum).

Hard boiled egg? I swear Joe, my mom wont take that joke lightly. Btw she's younger to you.

My view of the current situation is that an improvement in the Pakistani tone of speaking had been met by a sharp deterioration on our side,

No sire you 're forgetting that Uri attack happened after Modi's visit to Pakistan.

the free flow of rhetoric on both sides only encouraged a mindset that would move from irritation to anger to belligerence. For both sides.

I concur.

Further, that this verbal belligerence might accidentally transmute itself to physical action.

Accidentally?
Thats an assumption!
Our leaders, both from India and Pakistan, would never cross that line "accidentally". Infact not even our forces have done anything "accidentally".
Its only members of PDF who assume things.

entirely disagree with you about the effects of better visual viewing of the ground from satellites.
As regards CARTOSAT, the increase in visual capability will not help us detect Pakistani missiles (as they are mobile, it is not the sites that are important, it is the launchers)

We have 8 CARTOSAT satellites in the space not one and these are capable of tracking even the moving cars and their number plates.
Prolly you underestimate the worth of Indian assets in space.

What I want to say is that relations have never been as bad as before, and it is due more to the Indian side becoming unwontedly aggressive; what had been routine matters earlier are now fighting matters today. It is this that we wanted to draw people's attention.

So relations between India and Pakistan have touched rock bottom and you blame India for it.
Did i read it right?
BIG FAT NO. Thats not true. You've very conveniently avoided the steps taken by Indian Govt to bring Pakistan closer.
Let me remind you sir, Indian PM had invited Pak PM on his oath taking ceremony. This was followed by many gestures from both sides which reflected the strong bonds Indian PM shared with his Pakistani counterpart. But then ofcourse this meant existential threat to an organisation which survives on the rhetoric "India is an enemy".
Pathankot attack and Uri attack would have provoked anyone. If we were America we would launched an attack on the civilians too like they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. But India being the responsible nation that it is, avoided attacking civilians. It was the terrorist camps and their watch-guards who came under fire. Since then enemy has not able to carry out any major attack on Indian soil.
I do not blame the Pakistani populace and their politicians. They are helpless and some 're mislead.

First, I agree that the OP was making mischief; however, I was not very concerned. I had already read the original - elsewhere - and, beyond feeling bored that someone was trying such infantile tricks, I was not bothered.

A lie when repeated a 100 times becomes the truth. So every time we allow such misconstruing of statements by members here we are allowing them to propagate a lie which will soon be accepted as truth.
You should have taken action on the OP or atleast made him understand that he is misusing his privileges as an internet user.
Unfortunate that you decided to IGNORE it.

Have you noticed me hand out negatives without a rational basis?

Not always or you would have seen me pick on every negative that you marked here.
Frankly speaking, i dont know the member and @pothead is hardly bothered about the negative served to him. But sir read your statement again>>>

I was negative rating his false and slanderous assertions towards individuals, and his repetition of RSS slander derived from the lowest variety of web-site. His personal demure manner had nothing to do with it; I was disapproving of the content, not of the mouth-piece.

You've clearly confessed that you marked him negative for his views. In India even the PM and President face abuses on daily basis, going by the power that constitution has given them, half of our Journos and their leads should have been behind the bars by now. But sir, they get their freedom of speech. We are Indians and we are opinionated, because our system gives us that liberty.

Putting up a token Dalit is no cushion against atrocious behaviour towards Dalits in the real world.

Thats your opinion.
To me Ram Nath Kovind rose through the ranks to become the President of India. He represents true India, the one which considers merits of a person and not his caste.

I wanted to take an internal conversation further, and wanted you to read the posts here. Rest on 'conversation'. I believe that my views in that conversation have been totally vindicated.

My dear sir,
Sometime back I quit every conversation i was a part of on this forum. So I'm not aware of any discussion on a PM.

Btw do i also get to call you a name in return for what I was called in your previous post?
Lol.



.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

0% content , 60% delusion , 40% religious inferiority complex.

Yup still the same troll you always were .

Religious inferiority complex?????????????A Muslim minority ruled hindus for nearly a 1000 years wheras you guys havn't ruled us. indian Muslims not included as there are identical to hindus and sikhs minus their beliefs.

Not a good answer to the reality that you cannot argue against or debunk.....lol....

 

[Joe Shearer]

yes sir, you are all on a roll today.
After all how dare the son of a farmer, educate himself and choose to provide better life for his family by working outside of India.

How does that come into the picture? Did anyone raise your parentage? Or your choice of education? The effects of that 'education' are a different matter; those are clearly and amply spelt out in Oscar's posts. And who criticised your desire to provide a better life for your family?

What was criticised was your assumption of an over-riding authority over others by dint of your place of work.

I don't seriously know whether laugh or feel pity at some of the adjectives being thrown around at me.

After all how I dare I try to have a civil debate on a forum. After all a Forum is not a place for different POV to meet and have a civil discourse, right?

You abuse me and yet turn around and pretend what ever it is that you pretending.

Feel free to laugh, or to cry, or to do both simultaneously. How does it affect the comportment, the style of arguing or the contents?

Btw, Joe sir mentioned his daughter returned to India. Wonder if your views extend to all NRI's or it changes with the person?

LOL.

She doesn't write shit on PDF or any other on line journal or magazine.

And the pothead said "Get Over Yourself and have a joint".

Thank you; been there, done that, bought the T Shirt.

There is no chestnut.
You use Straw man as a means to caricaturize my position. yes sir, it can be used that way as well.

Only one definition, and I've printed it. Try not to tap dance your way out of a difficult situation; it doesn't work with a nominalist.

ok, let say you were less than wilful with the whole truth.
That Nehru was not happy and approached Gandhi is the truth.

LOL.

You don't even know what the election was about!

I did not know about the 1941 incident. Thanks for sharing. Still, the pre-independence Congress and the post served completely different objectives.

It very precisely didn't, and Gandhi confirmed this; since the Congress had not dissolved itself, and as it was the only organised entity in the soon-to-be Dominion of India, there was no choice but to go with the Congress.

Hence my point about the Patel being usurped by Nehru.
Again, your bringing in RSS has little bearing except to point finger at me and say 'you are a RSS sympathiser and you should not be asking these questions'. Does not work that way. I will ask questions, it can't be a right given to only one set of people professing to a certain ideology.

Nobody is obstructing your right to ask questions. Again, as Oscar pointed out, you glided across the truth and clutched hard at where you wanted to be. Nobody said you can't question it. You can, but you have no locus standi; only members of the Congress Party, membership being a definite fact, were entitled to vote. You, and your ideological parents, the RSS, had no such entitlement.

Which part of this is difficult to understand?

What was written to British is relevant but I am not interested in debating this in this thread.
You are too smart for me & I can't handle you with you trying to push me in circles.

Sorry, you raised it. You asked in martyred tones who was sent to 'kaalapani' and who went to a 3 star jail. I am entitled to show you - and everybody else reading this - that you don't know Jack Squat about the subject, that you don't know who the person sent to Kalapani was and his connection to the RSS, that you don't know what he did on arrival, and what his position was subsequently.

My other points I quoted you won't address and they were more important than the Sangh argument which you are forcing me to debate.

Ah, I am getting it, but slowly; you can ask any question you want, and I can't decide which are sensible enough to answer, and which are garbage.

Sir, two words, Political dynasties.
You are talking about the idealistic position of a democracy and I am pointing at the realistic positions on the ground.

Sir, two words, secret ballot. As far as political dynasties are concerned, look up the life and times of Thomas Pitt, erstwhile Governor of Madras.

Look around India sir, you will find kings and prince's in waiting. Just that they have renamed themselves as leaders and cloaked themselves in the garb of democracy.

Nobody prevents anyone else from contesting and turfing them out. Nobody will dispute the number of times such turfing out has happened.

May be bad choice of words but you won't mention the most important fact of Congress - that Gandhi wanted it dissolved.

If we were to stop and quibble about your choices of words, we would need another forum only for that. Gandhi did want it dissolved, the impracticality of it was pointed out by all prominent Congress members, including Patel, and he gave up on that idea.

Imagine if that had come to pass and there was a new party fighting the political battle, would Nehru still have become the first PM?

He would have won hands down.

All over India, people knew him or knew of him. Patel was known only in Gujarat and specifically in Kheda and in Bardoli.

Tell me, on a serious note, why don't you read before you open your mouth?

 

[Zen0]

Religious inferiority complex?????????????A Muslim minority ruled hindus for nearly a 1000 years

Hinduism ruled this subcontinent for 4000 years kid. Your ancestors are hindus , secondly the mogal empire lasted 1550-1700, its peak was only 70 year which. Besides they were central Indian kingdoms invading Pakistan , dunno why you need to gloat about that.

wheras you guys havn't ruled us.

Your lack of basic education is amusing , shows how the quality of education you are brought up in.

indian Muslims not included as there are identical to hindus and sikhs minus their beliefs.

Now you are just being a racist baigot to your own people. So much for "Islamic brotherhood"

 

[Arsalan 345]

I just read a new warning by Indian supa powa air chief Ms chunni.hahaha there are indians who are talking about Bangladesh liberation.dude we break India in two pieces in 1947 and we still exist.hahahaha

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Hinduism ruled this subcontinent for 4000 years kid. Your ancestors are hindus , secondly the mogal empire lasted 1550-1700, its peak was only 70 year which. Besides they were central Indian kingdoms invading Pakistan , dunno why you need to gloat about that.






Your lack of basic education is amusing , shows how the quality of education you are brought up in.

Now you are just being a racist baigot to your own people. So much for "Islamic brotherhood"

Little weiner boy, the nations where the Muslim invaders came from and ruled over india have NEVER EVER been conquered and ruled by indians. If you go back far enough you will realise that all humans originate from the same source. That does not make Sub-Saharan Africans Aryan Germans. Don't care what happened 1000s of years ago but modern day indians and Pakistanis are 2 distinct and fundamentally very deifferent races.

 

[Hellfire]

Isn't there an agreement of not targeting each other's nuclear sites?

Nuclear sites in terms of Nuclear power plants and ancillaries.

Nuclear Weapon storage is a different issue.

All this, keeping in view the hypothesis being propagated here.

Modi has given Indian Forces a free hand to handle Pakistan whichever way they want

Pretty open statement and incorrect.

The forces have been given a freedom of action without the authority to escalate matters beyond localised graded escalation along LC. That was always there. Only difference is, political interference till grassroots of military operations have reduce, mark it, reduced not removed.

More of public posturing. Armed Forces always had authority to escalate confrontation along LC. Only a series of systematic degradation of officer cadre and choice COAS has ensured that it was muzzled. That has, to a large extent, been dealt with.

The first name of the guy that made this threat is “BS” and that tells us everything about his threat.

India would have attacked Pakistan a very long time ago but is deterred by the later’s nuclear program and other strategic assets.

Having said that, it’s clear to everyone that has paid attention to India in the past decade or so that it has been preparing for a showdown with Pakistan. While Pakistan has been forced to deal with foreign funded internal turmoil in the shape of terrorism, hostile media and treasonous politicians, India has been on a shopping spree buying high-tech weapons specifically geared for a limited war with Pakistan. This war according to the Indians will be about 48-72 hours and limited to a specific theatre but will be relentless and devastating. The major aim of this war is to teach Pakistan a lesson, get the historical monkey of 1000 years of Muslim rule off the Hindu nationalists back and signal the arrival of India as a major world power. India will then make peace overtures to Pakistan and attempt to settle the Kashmir issue and other outstanding issues with Pakistan. This will put it in a position to challenge China moving forward.

Very troubling time ahead for Pakistan.

Most useless post in a long time. You actually have no idea of the topic you have just written on, do you.

So far, it has only led to many Indian casualties.

True. While Pakistan is unscathed. Typical B.S. peddling

Keyboard warriors and empty threats

In the past iaf had the chance to attack twice but they didn't

Because there won’t be. Only fools fight. I agree plenty of them in the subcontinent. But none to act on their foolishness.

The real fear is on India’s side as their wolf of two front war is finally becoming real and their window of opportunity to deal a military solution to Pakistan is all but closed

Surprised to read your post here. Either you are having a “Enjoy-yourself” day, or you simply missed reading things as they stand. There is a longer term strategy in place, and why IAF Chief is opening his mouth again on again, narrating a script which can give Alice in Wonderland a run for its money.

There is not a single person in uniform on the Indian side who can provide any assurance as to where this will go once they roll the dice.

You shall be surprised as to how advanced those calculations on probabilities have become. We are, more or less, pretty much clued up on the effects and probable contingencies.

The ‘data’ has been shared with the powers that be. And you can imagine their expressions.

War is, after all, a trade off between costs to benefit, just like a corporate cost center.

 

[Zen0]

Little weiner boy, the nations where the Muslim invaders came from and ruled over india have NEVER EVER been conquered and ruled by indians.

Goback to your cave manlet, you troll argument makes no sense . Your ancestors were ruled by hindu kings for 4000 years . Compared to that few hundred years is laughable.

If you go back far enough you will realise that all humans originate from the same source.

Lol 700 years before mugal empire is undocumented history to you, you're probably the type of nut who thinks evolution is a lie . Indian civilizations are as old as Chinese , our documented history predated your Jesus or Mohammad.

That does not make Sub-Saharan Africans Aryan Germans.

European are technically half breeds , they interbread with neanderthal apes subspecies unlike Asia and Africa who were pure homosapiens.

Don't care what happened 1000s of years ago

Says the troll who brings up a 1000 year old kingdom in every thread.

but modern day indians and Pakistanis are 2 distinct and fundamentally very deifferent races.

India is sub continent , Indians are not a homogeneous group . You Pakistanis are identical to west india to us east Indians you look all alien .

 

[Hellfire]

By the way I am all for giving tactical nukes a chance.

I agree. Make sure you are based out of Faisalabad when it is done, and not at Qatar, is it?

@Arsalan

 

[BetterPakistan]

You are to be congratulated both on your memory and on your encyclopaedic knowledge of Indian military personnel records.

Man, don't you know how to write encyclopedic correctly?? You wrote "encyclopaedic"

You should enhance your typing skills instead of awarding others Mr Desi Encyclopedia